beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 13,128,685 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from March 13, 2018 to December 5, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 29, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the Plaintiff (mutually: D) by setting the construction cost as KRW 24,900,000 for the internal repair and interior interior repair and interior construction of the building E in the Gu, Si, Gu, Si, and Gu.
B. From May 8, 2017 to May 20, 2017, the Plaintiff was performing the said construction, and the partitions of the expanding part of the benda was in consultation with the Defendant regarding the installation of the wall, and the construction was suspended.
C. Meanwhile, on May 11, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 as down payment and KRW 10,000 as part payment on May 17, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry in Eul-1 through 7 (including a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff (the plaintiff's claim) is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 15,00,000 for the fixed construction cost of KRW 27,493,700, which is limited to the fixed construction cost of KRW 12,493,70 for the remainder of the construction cost and delay damages.
나. 피고(반소 청구) 원고가 공사를 중단할 무렵 기성 공사대금이 27,493,700원에 이른다고 볼 수 없고, 오히려 원고는 피고에게 하자보수에 갈음한 손해배상 13,128,685원, 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상 약 15,000,000원(≒ 후속공사로 인한 초과공사비 9,210,165원 별도 지급 초과공사비 5,000,000원 교통비 등 그 밖의 손해 1,000,000원), 위자료 2,000,000원 합계 30,128,685원을 지급할 의무가 있다.
3. Determination
A. It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s claim for the remainder of construction works and the Plaintiff’s statement in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 alone led to KRW 27,493,700 ( KRW 23,090,000 if the Plaintiff removed KRW 4,403,70, such as the cost of substitute payment forG materials) at the time of suspending construction works. In addition to the site circumstances at the time of discontinuance of construction as confirmed in each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 7, the Defendant’s assertion that the advance payment was excessive.